From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Relation extension scalability |
Date: | 2016-03-12 03:56:58 |
Message-ID: | 56E3938A.3040306@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/03/16 01:01, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/11/16 5:14 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> I don't really understand this part about concurrent DDL. If there
>>> were concurrent DDL going on, presumably other backends would be
>>> blocked on the relation lock, not the relation extension lock - and it
>>> doesn't seem likely that you'd often have a huge pile-up of inserters
>>> waiting on concurrent DDL. But I guess it could happen.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah I was thinking about the latter part and as I said it's very rare
>> case, but I did see something similar couple of times in the wild. It's
>> not objection against committing this patch though, in fact I think it
>> can be committed as is.
>
> FWIW, this is definitely a real possibility in any shop that has very
> high downtime costs and high transaction rates.
>
> I also think some kind of clamp is a good idea. It's not that uncommon
> to run max_connections significantly higher than 100, so the extension
> could be way larger than 16MB. In those cases this patch could actually
> make things far worse as everyone backs up waiting on the OS to extend
> many MB when all you actually needed were a couple dozen more pages.
>
Well yeah I've seen 10k, but not everything will write to same table,
wanted to stay in realms of something that has realistic chance of
happening.
> BTW, how was *20 arrived at? ISTM that if you have a lot of concurrent
> demand for extension that means you're running lots of small DML
> operations, not really big ones. I'd think that would make *1 more
> appropriate.
The benchmarks I've seen showed you want at least *10 and *20 was better.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2016-03-12 03:57:45 | Re: Relation extension scalability |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-12 03:40:38 | Re: OS X 10.11.3, psql, bus error 10, 9.5.1 |